I think a man should support a woman financially without complaints. Unfortunately as a female i already would feel bad taking money from my partner, without a relationship. I suppose times have changed. I still think its correct, but it would be rare to find one who shares similar views, 100%.
For me, I would have never continued dating a man that believed otherwise. I wanted a highly functioning family. Which entailed my husband provided financially for the family. I would stay at home and raise the children. Once the children are grown, I would work or volunteer outside of the home. My husband is very happy to come home to a “put together” happy wife, a clean home and dinner prepared. I see it as a win/win situation. He is proud to financially support our family and I’m proud to raise and nurture a family without being haggard.
Anytime these debates are out there we need to remember opinions are just that...Opinions, neither right or wrong. There are many faces out there, we all are different and our personalities, needs, desires, and wants are too. So what works for one doesn't work well for the other. And yet, there are very strong differences between men and women....Religious or not, we were designed to be different for a reason. There are women out there that want that challenging career, the satisfaction of building something....But don't be fooled that you can have it all at the same time, raising children during this time and having a well balanced, healthy enviorrnment where they're being developed is not going to happen. Something will be left out, we are not super human beings. It boils down to what you value and what are the goals. Then plan accordingly. I believe that no matter how devoted the man is, the heart of the home will be her responsibility and wokring makes this a difficult concept. We as women generally put ourselves on the back burner for our families and leave ourselves open for disappointment when we don't give ourselves some room to grow too. I do believe the majority of nurturing will come from the woman and the majority of financial responsibility will come from the man....This is where most men tend to get their sense of worth, as providers.The challenge is being 100%/100% from both and know that all things are temporary and we can have it all over time. Personally I loved staying home and giving my kids the best head start, but I did it at my expense, and seeing my fourth so much different then my other three where I didn't work full time shows me the benefits perhaps of scaling back on the kids and balancing better over all. For a woman to re event herself later in years is hard when you stayed home 20+ years raising kids. It's all in the choices we make. I for one told my only daughter I will not pay for any wedding until she has a college degree and providing her with a means to help her family out and always have something no one will ever be able to take from her. Right now she has two under the age of two, is an event planner, works from home; however, she receives help from me. So yes, I do believe men should be the bread winners, don't have to be rich, but they generlly don't help out to the extent at home like a woman....So yes, women raise the kids..,,buy need to develope themselves throughout those years, we as humans should be always learning, teaching or building if we're are living to our fullest potential.
Women and men should both have to work! Especially in today's economy where it takes two incomes just to stay afloat. And yes I am going to echo the Google employees' veiws, which that are anatomically correct!!! Men and women are built differently! We can see this by looking in a mirror, unless you're one of those lgbtqhpvaids people who doesn't know what the hell is going on inside or outside of their bodies. Sorry if I offended a snowflake. I am not religious at all but we do have a thousand some odd year old book that tries to show us the correct way to live life or at least some sort of guidelines...It's called the Bible. It clearly states (and I agree) that men are supposed to be the leaders of their home and be the provider, while the women are supposed to focus on rearing children and providing a stable home life. But in today's society we have to both work which means both partners should have to do home chores as well. Women and men were built differently because they have a different set of roles to play in order to bind together as one and function as a unit. Sorry if I broke any spirits.
Men should not have to provide for a partner simply because of his gender. Women can provide for men just as well, and many dual-working couples exist. The wage gap is mostly a myth, based on the fact that women simply care more for children at home (which is what this refers to), and work in lower-pay industries. It would be sexist to claim that all men should support women, and not vice versa. I'm sure that many men working in jobs would gladly switch roles with their wife, while the woman is content with staying at home.
What kind of stupid, delusional, and prejudiced society are we living in?! People need to wake up and realize that men should not always have to do the work! Men are NOT AT ALL cash cows and they should be treated like actual human beings instead of pigs! NO ONE is a sex object! There are tons of female breadwinners and tons of women who financially take care of their husband or their boyfriend! You can't just tell someone what they should do and how they should act because of their gender or anything! How would you feel if someone told you how to act?! You would be pretty pissed off! Treat other people like you would treat yourself, you sexist moron! If you're feeling depressed, treat people like crap! If you're feeling angry, blame it on everyone! If you're happy, treat people with kindness! But NEVER, under ANY circumstances, force people to follow sexist stereotypes and gender roles! This is such a sad and stupid sexist question!
A very long time ago, marriages were a way to start a family, experience sexual pleasure, be protected from the eyes of people, have a sustainable common household finance (having a husband who pays for the house since women labor was looked down upon), maintain a good reputation, release oneself from parental financing (especially if a women's parents were unable to finance her anymore; this was found in abundance in Arabia) and satisfy God in religions like Islam where marriages are "half the religion". So, it wouldn't be odd that women used to get married at really young ages to any suitor they find who would provide them with all of the above. It was, of course, a harsh time, and finding suitors through love was hard, so planned marriages took place more often than not. Planned marriages weren't based on love and thus carried a lot of trouble. To solve the problems planned marriage carried, and to avoid divorce, religions put some sort of red line – a sort of bare minimum which couples should do. A man should pay his wife. A woman should please her husband.
Those rules make marriage somewhat like a prisonhouse with strict rules that people have to follow. The insertation of obligations into marriage stripped it from any emotion it might've held.
But with the advancement of human understanding, marriage lost its necessity as all the reasons that once made it important stopped being applicable in modern times. In it's place came love-based marriage – a bond that was not led by obligations but by emotions.
So, nowadays, couples in relationships are emotion-led and not obligation-led as they were in the ancient times. Subsequently, man has no obligation to woman and she not to him unless it relates to their emotions, like their obligations to not cheat and whatnot.
Also, feminism made it clear that a woman is equal to man, and not superior to him nor inferior. Believing that man has obligations to pay his spouse but everything else is equal flips the situation into reverse-sexism, or the belief that men are inferior to women, which contradicts with the whole feminism thing. So in order to keep them equal, they must have the same obligations if any. So if a man has to pay, then so does a woman.
Also, limiting the question to man and woman is wrong itself in the 21st century, when we have all sorts of people on the gender spectrum and all sorts of sexualities. A homosexual relationship wouldn't arise such conflict, for example, for both lovers are of the same genders. Somehow, however, gender norms force themselves wrongly onto heterosexual relationships.
So no, men are not obliged to pay to women.